pilgrim wrote:Before the tragedy, most people thought it was funny. Unfortunately, the world will continue to think that frivolous talk is entertainment.
Mr Man wrote:I guess a lesson we can learn from this is that we really should try and be vigilant. The outcome of the prank couldn't be predicted but it is now something that the two broadcasters have to live with and except a degree of responsibility for.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Her employers bear far greater responsibility than the radio station
Ben wrote:I read in the paper this morning that the 'prank' was given the ok by the radio station's lawyers before it was aired.
Its really awful and a disgrace and indicative of the complete lack of morals or sensitivity of radio presenters in this country.
We seem to have some real noteworthy specimens from the shallow end of the gene pool on the radio in Australia.
And what will the radio station do? Make an announcement that the presenters will be off the air, then some weeks or months later quietly reinstate them.
Meanwhile, the radio station capitalizes on the increase in audience share as a result of the controversy.
Annapurna wrote:Following teachings of the Buddha came to mind:
1. Right speech.
A prank is a lie. Do you agree? It's not the truth!
You pretend something that is not true, and try to fool someone for amusement.
I am sure the Buddha would have heartily disagreed with this prank.
2. Intention: ...that's interesting.
Obviously, they did not intend this. So, in a way, they can't be blamed for Jacintha's suicide, but well for all that led to it.
The Buddha discouraged all sorts of entertainment issues...and that's their biz.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Mr Man wrote:I guess a lesson we can learn from this is that we really should try and be vigilant. The outcome of the prank couldn't be predicted but it is now something that the two broadcasters have to live with and except a degree of responsibility for.
The hoax was thoughtless, pointless and potentially dangerous and offensive. The pranksters' employers also bear some responsibility.
The nurse was (at least) not as cautious as she should have been, copped more blame for it than she deserved, and has paid a greater price than she should have.
Her employers bear far greater responsibility than the radio station but have not - to my knowledge - been called to account for it. Every hospital in our (Aussie) system has strong rules on patient confidentiality and I assume the same is true in the UK, and it is the hospital's responsibility - to the patients and their families - to have training and protocols in place which prevent this kind of unauthorised release of information even when a staff member is liable to make a poor judgement call. Maybe especially then.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests